|
|
Post by dj on Aug 26, 2010 18:55:35 GMT -5
The cultural center being designed is being patterned after a local Jewish Community Center - of which al-Gamal is a member - and YMCA's. The idea is, they are all open to all faiths or people with no faith at all. In addition to an actual mosque at the location will be day care, a gym and basketball court, pool(s) and even a culinary school. cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/08/04/chernoff.mosque.developer.cnnAlso, here is the complete interview Laura Ingraham did with Daisy Khan last December about the mosque, its location, muslim extremism, building bridges, etc. |
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 26, 2010 19:13:39 GMT -5
 Yes, Mayor Bloomberg does have business connections that fogs his reasoning. Particularly when the following paragraph is read: Bloomberg’s demands of religious tolerance from his city’s citizens is inconsistent in a city with 100 mosques already in operation but with a school system that will not acknowledge Christianity or Christmas, or even allow the repairs necessary for the Greek Orthodox rch, St. Nicholas, to go forward nearly a decade after it was crushed by falling debris from the Twin Towers themselves. One will and can complain about the school system not being able to acknowledge Chrisitanity or Christmas while there is mention of other religions in schools. BUT, why are they allowing this new building while not approving the repairs of an existing rch that was damaged as a part of the 9/11 terrorist actions? One would think that repairs of existing buildings would have priority. Many existing buildings have already been repaired, why has this rch not received approval for repairs? Yet, new construction for another religious building gets priority?
|
|
|
|
Post by Turk on Aug 26, 2010 23:04:40 GMT -5
The cultural center being designed is being patterned after a local Jewish Community Center - of which al-Gamal is a member - and YMCA's. The idea is, they are all open to all faiths or people with no faith at all. In addition to an actual mosque at the location will be day care, a gym and basketball court, pool(s) and even a culinary school. cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/08/04/chernoff.mosque.developer.cnnAlso, here is the complete interview Laura Ingraham did with Daisy Khan last December about the mosque, its location, muslim extremism, building bridges, etc. DJ, Its over there, you have missed the target again. Like Obama you are disconnected from what the folks feel and want. Your side needs to learn that the quilt trip, justification garbage has run its course. Your view is divisive because of the lack of consideration regarding the questionable developer and the extreme radical iman. As long as you are hung up on the so-called benefits of the mosque, you’ll not see the forest. Quoting Laura Ingraham is a legitimate argument - ha |
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Aug 26, 2010 23:43:19 GMT -5
Well, that is quite a puff piece by CNN!
Just like they recently changed the name, they have recently been attempting to change the perception of what they are building there. But as late as June 2010, the developer was promoting this building on his website as a "full-fledged Islamic Center" near Ground Zero capable of accommodating from 1000 to 2000 worshipers.
I have heard a few of Daisy Khan's interviews. In my opinion, she and her husband are quite the double-talkers. While her husband is overseas and no one can reach him, she has been speaking out as if they are the victims now that the public is asking questions about things like funding, which they still refuse to disclose. Instead, when asked on ABC whether the opponents of this mosque is a case of Islamophobia, she answered, and I quote, "It's not even Islamophobia; it's beyond Islamophobia -- it's hate of Muslims." Disgustingly, the moderator accepted that answer without asking for clarification or reasoning behind such a blatant afront to the free speech of Americans.
Now, I ask you, are those the words of someone who wants to build bridges? Or is that gonna be the tactic from here on out?
|
|
|
|
Post by nikki on Aug 26, 2010 23:47:03 GMT -5
Turk,
That is the protestors that just recently have been organized by CAIR. It is going to get worse.
|
|
|
|
Post by lou on Aug 27, 2010 13:00:09 GMT -5
As I understand the Governor of NY, Patterson, was willing and able to set up a meeting to discuss an alternate location. So far neither party, neither the Iman nor the owner of the building in question were willing to even meet with the gov and discuss his suggestion. That's understandable. It would be an implicit acceptance of the formula which says the closer the mosque is to "ground zero" the more insulting it is, and the farther away from "ground zero" the more acceptable it is. The point, to supporters, is to overcome the connection between the terrorist usurping of Islam on 9/11, and the mainstream moderate practice of Islam in America, and in that neighborhood. The point being to re-establish a fruitful and constructive peaceful relationship between contemporary American Islam and the community wherein it dwells. In this case, that's right there in that neighborhood. You don't overcome misperceptions, and heal perceived wounds, by building the community center 5 miles from the actual community. If I were a part of the designing, funding, building, or managing of this mosque I would also ignore "offers" to find another location far away. It defeats the purpose. You have presented the argument which the Iman purports; but, it does not lend credibility to this position as it would in essence validate the terrorist attack on 9/11, furthermore this Iman has yet to condemn that attack in words that are meaningful. His tepid response was just that meaningless and vapid. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 27, 2010 15:34:10 GMT -5
The cultural center being designed is being patterned after a local Jewish Community Center - of which al-Gamal is a member - and YMCA's. The idea is, they are all open to all faiths or people with no faith at all. In addition to an actual mosque at the location will be day care, a gym and basketball court, pool(s) and even a culinary school. cnn.com/video/?/video/us/2010/08/04/chernoff.mosque.developer.cnnAlso, here is the complete interview Laura Ingraham did with Daisy Khan last December about the mosque, its location, muslim extremism, building bridges, etc. DJ, Its over there, you have missed the target again. Like Obama you are disconnected from what the folks feel and want. Your side needs to learn that the quilt trip, justification garbage has run its course. Your view is divisive because of the lack of consideration regarding the questionable developer and the extreme radical iman. As long as you are hung up on the so-called benefits of the mosque, you’ll not see the forest. Quoting Laura Ingraham is a legitimate argument - ha Actually, I didn't quote Laura Ingraham at all. After I said "Here is the complete interview Laura Ingraham did with Daisy Khan," I meant to link Ingraham's interview with her from last December. I was just adding this as a supplemental piece of info for the conversation, to add to the discussion, not prove a point. But I left off the link, my mistake. Here it is: I have to say this here: The purpose for showing the Ingraham link was to provide a full context clip. There are some on the left who are saying "Ingraham supported the mosque back in December! She said 'I like what you're doing' to Khan!" However, full disclosure compels me to also include Ingraham's whole take. As you know I have a thing about people being quoted out of context So I found the entire unedited interview Ingraham did with Khan, because truthfully she was not fully supportive of the idea, and she did raise questions about some past statements made by Khan's husband Feisal Rauf. Yes, she said to Khan "I like what you're trying to do" and she did invite Khan back to the show, and she was generally positive, but I didn't want to misrepresent her by ignoring the pointed questions she asked of Khan about her husband's views. Some people have characterized her as being perfectly OK with it but I thought it only fair to show that's not exactly the case. Which brings me to my supposedly being "divisive": Come on, now. I have a genuine optimism about the project and its long-term effects on the area. Just because I think those aspects are more important than questions about the developer, that doesn't make my view "divisive." I think perhaps calling the mosque "an act of war" is probably more along the lines of "divisive" than to say it will be a positive catalyst for interfaith understanding. You may find that naive, or "disconnected," but honestly I think "divisive" is simply the wrong word. |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 27, 2010 15:50:08 GMT -5
BUT, why are they allowing this new building while not approving the repairs of an existing rch that was damaged as a part of the 9/11 terrorist actions? One would think that repairs of existing buildings would have priority. Many existing buildings have already been repaired, why has this rch not received approval for repairs? Yet, new construction for another religious building gets priority? The clarion advisory mischaracterized the situation with St Nicholas Greek Orthodox rch. It's not that the city has refused to approve "repairs" to the rch. The entire property is on the Port Authority WTC site and was utterly destroyed. The rch announced even back at the end of 2001 the process of re-designing and re-building would take 10 years. And instead of simply rebuilding in the same location, the rch leaders and the Port have been negotiating for a land swap which will allow the rch about FIVE times the original space. This way the rch can build an entire community center and school and other facilities on the site, including I think, a museum and memorial. In addition, part of the negotiation is for the Port Authority to GIVE the rch between $20 MILLION and $60 MILLION to help with their project, and blast-proofing underground, and so on. So, FAR FROM ignoring the rch, the city and the Port Authority have been working with them on this issue for nine years. Recently there was a bottleneck in the negotiations, and I heard that the land swap was pulled off the table because the rch was asking for more $$, and the Port Authority's position is the rch will just have to go back to building the rch on the original site with the original $20 Million budget. It appears this will eventually get worked out; the city expressed the expectation just a week ago that the swap will still move forward despite the glitch. The Clarion Advisory's contention that the city won't "even allow the repairs necessary for the Greek Orthodox rch, St. Nicholas, to go forward nearly a decade after it was crushed" is inaccurate, at best. |
|
|
|
Post by animal on Aug 27, 2010 22:52:14 GMT -5
Not what I heard.... the origional deal was for the port authority to build a huge underground garage first, then the rch up on top of that..... they just finished the garage, and put the rch on hold with planning, permits etc.
Who knows which story is correct.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tired in CV on Aug 28, 2010 3:04:27 GMT -5
Not what I heard.... the origional deal was for the port authority to build a huge underground garage first, then the rch up on top of that..... they just finished the garage, and put the rch on hold with planning, permits etc. Who knows which story is correct. This is what I understood as well. It also clarifies dj's statement about "blast-proofing underground". If the rch is to be built above a garage, there needs to be a blast barrier to prevent another van laden with explosives taking out the rch! |
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Aug 28, 2010 6:52:11 GMT -5
Not what I heard.... the origional deal was for the port authority to build a huge underground garage first, then the rch up on top of that..... they just finished the garage, and put the rch on hold with planning, permits etc. Who knows which story is correct. This is what I understood as well. It also clarifies dj's statement about "blast-proofing underground". If the rch is to be built above a garage, there needs to be a blast barrier to prevent another van laden with explosives taking out the rch! Is that Osama Van Laden?  |
|
|
|
Post by dj on Aug 29, 2010 2:24:49 GMT -5
Not what I heard.... the origional deal was for the port authority to build a huge underground garage first, then the rch up on top of that..... they just finished the garage, and put the rch on hold with planning, permits etc. Who knows which story is correct. This is what I understood as well. It also clarifies dj's statement about "blast-proofing underground". If the rch is to be built above a garage, there needs to be a blast barrier to prevent another van laden with explosives taking out the rch! Actually, the port was going to build a bomb screening center below the new rch property, not a parking garage. The timeline is off, however, the port didn't finish their part and then put the rch on hold. Negotiations have been going on for years, and an agreement was reached two years ago, but not legally consumated. After more delays threatened to hold up other parts of the entire ground zero project, the port pulled the deal off the table, in early 2009. This story explains everything pretty well: www.nytimes.com/2009/03/19/nyregion/19rch.htmlTo my original response, clearly the port has not been "ignoring" the rch or not allowing them to rebuild. They were even giving them sizable amounts of money to help with the rebuild. In fact, even if the deal for the bigger better new site does not happen, the rch still has every right to build where they originally were. |
|
|
|
Post by animal on Aug 29, 2010 6:47:03 GMT -5
|
|
|
|
Post by jdredd on Sept 2, 2010 4:31:58 GMT -5
www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-11161493"Citing the 1992 discovery of a planet orbiting a star other than our Sun, he said: "That makes the coincidences of our planetary conditions - the single Sun, the lucky combination of Earth-Sun distance and solar mass - far less remarkable, and far less compelling as evidence that the Earth was carefully designed just to please us human beings." He adds: "Because there is a law such as gravity, the universe can and will create itself from nothing." You can believe in God without thinking he designed the whole damn place for humans. And if you say " the universe can and will create itself from nothing", maybe you have just described God.
|
|
|
|
Post by dj on Sept 5, 2010 19:00:42 GMT -5
Yes. This rch has always been part of the Port Authority general plan for the property. For much of the last 9 years, the idea was to swap land with the rch, so the rch would have about five times the property as they had before, and their original plot of land would be used for other parts of the World Trade Center complex. Obviously, the entire property is taking 10 to 15 years to develop. The rch and the World Trade Center developers all knew very early on that the project would take more than a decade, and that various aspects of the development would all be part of a coordinated timeline. The fact that the rch doesn't have building permits yet has nothing to do with the Port Authority "ignoring" them. It has to do with the everchanging plan for the complex as a whole. The land swap offer came off the table about 18 months ago, because apparently there were still a great many disagreements as to how much money the Port Authority and developer were going to give to the rch in order to assist their building project, and in order to mitigate other issues like the fact that the port was going to own the subterranean space below the rch and build a bomb screening center. Blast-proofing and other safety considerations were going to be very expensive, but it was all on the table until talks broke off. The port's position the last 18 months has been that the rch can simply keep their original location, since any more delays on the rest of the property were going to hold up the overall WTC project. In summary: The rch has not been "ignored." Quite the opposite. I think there's still a strong possibility that they'll work out the land swap issue. If not, they build where they originally were. The permits will not be an issue. |
|
